Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

We recently discussed news of a UK court ruling in which the judge decided Apple must publicly acknowledge that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not infringe upon the iPad's design, both on the Apple website and in several publications. The acknowledgement has now been posted, and it's anything but apologetic. It states the court's ruling, helpfully referring to "Apple's registered design No. 000018607-0001," and quotes the judges words as an advertisement. The judge wrote, "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool." They go on to mention German and U.S. cases which found in Apple's favor. Apple's statement concludes, "So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

..they required an acknowledgement of design differences. The danger for Apple is that such a public acknowledgement could spill over into other jurisdictions and affect suits there. Therefore, they've made it as highly specifically technical and narrow to their lawyers' interpretation of the judge's order as possible. Whether or not the court will agree is another matter, and if the court disagrees, how the judge feels about it could mean anything from tweaking the wording to being found in contempt.

I made no opinion or statement on their assholishness. In fact, I find the entire idea that someone can patent a touchescreen with some processing capability in a housing with a battery to be stupid. We have prior art in the form of fictional TV shows definitely showing this stuff to us in the eighties (IE, Star Trek:TNG's "PADD") and we had a series of convertible tablet PCs in the late nineties and early naughties that had similar functionality with albeit heftier components. I don't look on the iPad as anything more than one of many incrementally evolutionary devices in a series of ever-improving handhelds.

If I were the judge, I would have found that Samsung did not infringe on Apple because of prior art, not because of any subjective view like what's considered cool.

They've been arseholes. I'm pretty sure the reason the court ruled that they had to make an apology was because they've been arseholes. In fact, Apple are such arseholes that when the court first ruled against them in this case, before the court further forced them to apologize to Samsung, they released a statement to the press which basically made it sound like the court had ruled in their favour

In fact, I find the entire idea that someone can patent a touchescreen with some processing capability in a housing with a battery to be stupid

The touché screen - is that some special type of app that automatically finds the top 10 wittiest remarks (relevant to the current display on the screen)? That sounds like a legitimately patentable idea to me. A damn good one at that.

No, you missed his point, I do believe. What he's saying is that if someone else had the Idea, you shouldn't be able to patent the Idea and prevent other people from making money by using that Idea.

Make money? Sure you can make money. Go right ahead. But enough with this bullhucky about "I had the idea of a more or less rectangular device that has curves on it" that Apple has pulled in the last few months. Because that, my friend, is complete and utter idiocy.

I think everything that was bad about Microsoft's market defensiveness which made it 'the brand of squares' was also what pushed people to Apple. Now that Apple is the same if not worse, I would expect to see the trendy crowd leaving in their droves if they had somewhere to go.

Apple as a corporate brand looks like a cynical, egotistical, dominance protecting bullshit artist. I know, I know, it's all about the shareholders but it seems really at odds with their hipster marketing.

Within the next few years, there's space for a new 'fashion electronics' brand to replace Apple. I don't think that's going to be Nokia, Microsoft, RIM or Samsung but who knows.

Apple has always been their fans and not the other way around. Originally Apple's fans were tinkerers and engineers, so Apple was all about that until the MCA, them artists were all about Apple so Apple was an artistic company devoted to making a better experience for the user. Then the damn iPod came along and ruined everything. Suddenly Apple's fans were a bunch of assholes who thought they were superior to everyone else because they all listened to the same awful noise they swore was music. Now it has b

How many times do we have to beat this into the ground? You CAN get protection on design. This was not just about "rounded rectangles." All bottles share many characteristics, but try selling a soda in a curvy bottle that looks just like Coke's and see where that gets you. All cars share many characteristics, but Chevy can not make a car that looks just like a Mustang and Ford can not make a car that looks just like a Camaro. There are MANY ways to make a tablet that don't consist primarily of a black rectangle with parallel sides and a bezel of a certain width and with chrome trim.

It may or may not be bullshit but that's the law as it stands. There is a continuum between "totally different" and "virtually identical" and that's where the courts come in. Samsung COULD have played it safe and EASILY made products that look different from Apple's but instead they said "let's copy Apple as much as we can and take our chances."

I'm not arguing that design patents shouldn't be allowed. All I meant is that the design patent that was asserted against Samsung really is just a rectangle with rounded corners. The only other elements that one could possibly argue are required by the design are what appear to be an LED and a connector of some kind, but it isn't all that clear what they are supposed to be.

These are not functional patents, they are design patents. The TV depictions, in terms of design/trade dress show that the design is not novel and as there are multiple such TV/movie examples, obvious.

You are confused. Apples patent is a DESIGN PATENT. What that device actually does or its purpose is not relevent. It could a kids toy, a piece of plastic, or a portable nuclear reactor that fits inside that design. If that design was shown before, it was prior art. The operation of the procut iside that design has completely different patents.

People have been building skyscapers for mixed office/business/condo use for years, many of them have design patents with them. The petent there is the design,

A horse-carriage is not the same as a modern automobile -- after all, it does not have a steering wheel or other amenities -- yet people always saw it as enough of a prior art to call it a car; short for horseless carriage.

A feather quill cut and dumped in ink is not exactly the same as a modern ink pen, but who would doubt that the feather is prior art?

Can you deny that the first telephones of Reis, Gray or Bell constitute a real, tangible prior art to modern mobile phones; even though they look and work completely different?

And do you know what all those things I have mentioned have in common: They admit to themselves as having prior art; they fully embrace it and the companies that make them do not intend to sue the crap out of each other for those things they have in common. Rather more, they try to innovate and focus on what makes them different.

So, what makes the Apple products different from their competitors that is also different to their own roots -- the prior art? What makes you buy one in preference to the others? Is it the fact that they have rounded edges? Certainly not. Is it the fact that they are black? Of course not. Is it the basic way you work with them (tapping, looking, reading)? I'd be hard pressed to say that that's the case.

No, you prefer one over the other because of its functional differences; exactly those things that actually set it apart from both its prior art and their competitors; especially in the minds of their customers.

So coming full circle again: The looks of the TNG PADDs and the way you hold them is inconsequential to the question if they constitute prior art, as long as their technical and functional aspects are so similar -- which is undeniably the case.

...and while Samsung and Apple duke it out in court, Asus has quietly perfected its Transformer line to a point where I say that tablets will in the near future replace desktop PCs.

The sole reason for a beefy PC for me is intensive gaming or intensive software development. I find myself more often not taking my laptop with me on business trips and only bring my Prime. Now they threaten to sell a similar machine with an i7, Win 8(which may or may not suck) and 3 slightly bigger screens. And even if I refuse to go down the Win8 route: the form factor of the Transformers is so perfect that neither Apple or Samsung have anything in store that even remotely interests me.

The sheer brilliance of having a second battery in the detachable keyboard alone is worth the price. Not needing a protective cover for the screen since the keyboard protects it is clever. Using the keyboard to offer a second data storage is commendable. Having fully featured USB/HDMI ports on the keyboard is useful. It's like carrying your docking station around with you.

Pity about the GPS, tho. And Android web browsers still suck. Responsiveness is at times sluggish. And it can become awfully warm(not hot). And it has the worst case of Bluetooth lag I have ever encountered. Try watching a movie with Bluetooth headphones and sound and movie will never be in synch. It also is mono. And it is not beefy enough to run the first Dungeon Keeper in Dosbox at a playable frame rate(I could possibly tweak it a bit, tho).

This sort of "apology" is the sort of thing I expect from a petulant child and should be corrected swiftly and definitively.

Didn't the court actually instruct Apple exactly what it should write? Why not just write the notice for Apple and have them post it on their website instead of leaving it up to Apple's lawyers to set the wording?

However, I still had to LOL after reading it. Apple really has balls as big as its war chest. Bravo, Apple, bravo.

Apple stated all the reference details of the case, including a URL, and quoted the judges exact words. Are you saying the judge was mean-spirited in his assessment? Or do you take exception to Apple pointing out that that other courts around the world took a different view on the matter?

Apple are mean-spirited asses

I'm just quoting your exact words.I ommitted some of the off-topic bits, but those are still your words.

Maybe it isn't such a bad idea? If individuals had to publicly humiliate themselves for bringing false and expensive lawsuits, maybe there would be fewer of them. But then - I've always thought we should bring back the racks!

What is wrong with apologizing to the wronged party? This is how disputes are resolved in a civilized society. Do you think that a huge fine for slandering their opponent would be a more appropriate response?

But writing an apology and being forced to publicize it is humiliating. That's kind of the point.

In Mao's time, they called this a "self-criticism". It still exists in the West today. Remember when Penny Arcade comic refused to write a self-criticism to pacify angry feminists? They were the exception, usually this occurs accompanied by the payment of a fine ("donation") to a cause opposed to the offending belief.

Actually, they do not actually acknowledge non-infringement at all. All they acknowledge is the court decision that Samsung did not infringe. This so-called apology is merely a recitation of the fact that the court had concluded the things that they did. They do not even hint at acknowledging that this decision was in any way, shape, or form, a genuine assessment of reality.

All they acknowledge is the court decision that Samsung did not infringe.

...which is all that they were required to do according to the ruling.

To quote directly from the actual ruling [bailii.org], here's what Apple was required to do:

(4) Within seven days of the date of this Order the Defendant shall, at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court

[...]

The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites [...]

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

And then it says that the same thing needs to be posted in a lot of magazines. That's all that Apple was required to do, and near as I can tell, that sentence is the very first one in Apple public statement on their website. You've apparently bought into a fiction for what Apple was required to do as a result of this ruling. Granted, there was a lot of hyperbole swirling around after the ruling, so it's not surprising that people are incorrectly believing that apologies and statements like the ones you were expecting were required, but those expectations have no basis in reality.

And then it says that the same thing needs to be posted in a lot of magazines. That's all that Apple was required to do, and near as I can tell, that sentence is the very first one in Apple public statement on their website

Which is not, one might note, actually on the homepage of their UK website (which is one of its EU websites), which homepage contains neither the notice required by the order to be placed "on the home pages of its EU websites", nor the link to the judgement required to be placed as part of that notice, but does contain a link which says it is to a "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement" which links instead to the page linked in TFS, which contains the notice text, link to the judgement, and then a bunch of other Apple commentary.
It seems to me that the bigger deal than them adding the additional language after the notice text is the fact that they haven't done what the order required, which is placing the notice on the homepage of their EU websites. And since the order specifically references the use of hyperlinks within the notice, it seems that the order is quite clear in distinguishing where content is placed vs. where hyperlinks to content are placed, so placing a hyperlink to a page containing the notice where they are required by the order to place the notice itself is nonresponsive.

I can agree with that entirely. While I do take issue with criticisms aimed at the content of the message, I fully agree that it appears Apple did not comply with the ruling by placing the content on their homepage.

Which is not, one might note, actually on the homepage of their UK website (which is one of its EU websites), which homepage contains neither the notice required by the order to be placed "on the home pages of its EU websites", nor the link to the judgement required to be placed as part of that notice, but does contain a link which says it is to a "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement" which links instead to the page linked in TFS, which contains the notice text, link to the judgement, and then a bunch of other Apple commentary.
It seems to me that the bigger deal than them adding the additional language after the notice text is the fact that they haven't done what the order required, which is placing the notice on the homepage of their EU websites. And since the order specifically references the use of hyperlinks within the notice, it seems that the order is quite clear in distinguishing where content is placed vs. where hyperlinks to content are placed, so placing a hyperlink to a page containing the notice where they are required by the order to place the notice itself is nonresponsive.

You would be right, going by the original decision, but the UK appeals court modified it to say that Apple could put a link on their home page, acknowledging that requiring the statement itself on their home page would adversely affect the design of the page.

To quickly go into what difference that makes for anyone else reading along, the text I incorrectly attributed to the judge up above [slashdot.org] is actually Samsung's request for what Apple should be asked to do. If you read through the ruling [bailii.org], the judge says:

I am not persuaded that the list of websites in Schedule 1, other than the United Kingdom website, would be fair or appropriate. I am also not persuaded that the statement needs to be on the websites for one year. This is a very fast moving industry and I bear in mind the risk of prejudice to Apple and I will require the statement to be on the United Kingdom website of Apple corporation for six months.

So, towards that, Apple likely is not breaking the ruling by only linking the text from their front page, rather than putting it on their front page proper.

Interestingly, the judge also addresses the topic many people here are bringing up about how Apple is insinuating that infringement occurred, despite having to cite the ruling:

In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. [... T]o many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

But then he later goes on to basically say that he feels as if Samsung's and Apple's comments on that topic balance each other out, so it doesn't matter.

They didn't make it narrow or specifically technical at all. At what point does "we concocted a giant story discussing the matter and other issues" as opposed to just stating "Samsung did not copy Apple" sound like an even remotely narrow interpretation? This isn't following the spirit or the letter of the law.

If he lived, he could literally post the judge's own words about the coolness of Apple versus the lack of coolness of Samsung. He could cite that the court demonstrated that his products are the coolest around. And a lot of people would buy into that.

It doesn't, but not for the reason you are arguing. The content is compliant, since the order specifies the exact text that is required to be placed, and doesn't restrict placing other text with it, and that text is there, and is the first non-heading text on the page.

The placement of the notice fails to comply with the order, however; it required that the notice be placed on the homepages of all of Apple's EU sites, in a specified typefa

Depends on the judge. I think it is safe to say that if a judge went out of his way to have Apple post something like this publicly, and they spat in his face, there is going to be hell to pay. This doesn't seem like your run of the mill judge, and Apple should have known this from the verdict decision.

It was three Appeal judges. This sort of thing really is a mistake where they are concerned, and I imagine they will be contacting one another about it on their Blackberries. If Apple now goes to the UK Supreme Court, they will not be very popular.

Apple didn't even follow the letter of what the judge told them to do (and it was not a request, it was a court order) The judge told them to acknowledge that Samsung did not infringe. Rather than do that, all they did was acknowledge that *court* had determined that Samsung did not infringe. This is a mere recitation of historically verifiable facts, and not an acknowledgement that Samsung did not infringe, which is what the judge told Apple to do.

Apple didn't even follow the letter of what the judge told them to do (and it was not a request, it was a court order)

That much is correct.

The judge told them to acknowledge that Samsung did not infringe.

No, the judge told them to place a specific notice (with the exact wording specified in the order, and a hyperlink to the judgement specified in a particular place), with specific text font and size. Which is the first non-title text actually on the page, and appears to use the correct font and size. So the content of the notice page is probably compliant -- nothing in the order directs them not to have other content on the page the notice is placed on. The "acknowledge that Samsung didn't infringe" is the kind of things news sites characterizing the order described it as, not what the actual order requires.

However, the order also specifies which pages the notice has to be placed on: and the specified pages are the hompages of Apple's EU sites. On their UK site, at least -- and I suspect the same is true elsewhere -- the only thing related to the notice on the homepage of the site is smaller text reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement" in the page footer, which is a hyperlink to the page linked from TFS. The text required by the order to be placed on the homepage of Apple's EU sites is not present, either in the required font and size or otherwise.

You didn't read far enough (neither did I, to be fair; someone else pointed it out to me). If you read further down in the court document [bailii.org], you'll see that the part you're referencing is Samsung's terms that they were seeking from the ruling, and that the judge's actual ruling is at the bottom. If you read the ruling, you'll see the following:

57. I am not persuaded that the list of websites in Schedule 1, other than the United Kingdom website, would be fair or appropriate. I am also not persuaded that the statement needs to be on the websites for one year. This is a very fast moving industry and I bear in mind the risk of prejudice to Apple and I will require the statement to be on the United Kingdom website of Apple corporation for six months.

While Samsung's terms indicated that the notice should be on the home page of the website (and used terminology sufficient to draw a distinction between a home page and a more general website), the judge's ruling only specified that the notice needs to be on the website, with no indication that it must be on the home page.

Also, related to what you were talking about, the judge was well aware of Apple's proclivity to try and suggest that Samsung was copying:

51. In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

That said, he later goes on to say that he more or less considers that a moot point since Samsung and Apple are big boys who can take care of themselves and that forcing Apple to post the ads balances things out. So, you were spot-on correct about Apple not being required to apologize or offer any other sort of statement, other than that one line of required text.

I really hope the UK has the equivalent of 'contempt of court' and throws the book at those arrogant jerks at Apple.

I further hope the blowback from their attempted patent-armageddon against the rest of the smartphone industry costs them manyfold what they've attempted to extort from others. I only wish I'd never introduced my wife to Apple, and helped her climb the Linux learning curve instead. I hate the idea of giving those would-be monopolists a single penny.

Yes, the UK does have the principle of "contempt of court", and I'd say this is pretty much an example of it as it goes against the spirit and arguably the wording of the court judgement. I just wonder how the court would decide which Apple employees are going to prison for this (and yes, contempt of court invariably means jail time even if it's only overnight).

I don't know how this would play out in the UK, but most US judges I've been before would have them back in court ASAP. It's true enough that they've put the required text in the required font on their site, and so they've technically complied with the letter of the order.

However, this isn't like an everyday contract where you get to find a loophole and laugh - it's a court order. Judges can and do ensure that parties abide by the letter *and* spirit of their rulings, and do not take kindly to those who skirt around their intent. (Unlike contracts, courts have a decent amount of latitude to clarify/modify their orders when things like this happen.)

I'm fairly certain that the judge did not intend for Apple to post the required text, then follow it up with excerpts from the court that appear to endorse Apple products - and I'm just as certain that Apple's lawyers knew that. Apple is seeing if they can get away with it, and I suppose the rest of us are, too.

It is never good to have a goverment ordering people to say or write things they don't actually believe. This is called "Freedom of Conscience." If Apple slandered or libeled Samsung the court can issue a fine. Or the court can write a press release that identifies the court as the author and force Apple to dsiplay it.

Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined.

The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.

The reason Apple were made to do this apology in the first place was because they put out PR material that misled consumers over the court proceedings. To then, in the apology use selective quotes that distort the nature of the ruling again... You can be sure the judge won't look kindly at it.

A judges ruling is not a cast iron contract where following it to the letter is all that matter, the "spirit" of the ruling is key and Apple are willfully going against it.

Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined.
The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. Apple no doubt ran this buy their very good legal team and decided the risk was worth it. Apple laid out facts along with the required notice and did not specifically continue to accuse Samsung of copying their design so they 8may* be safe but then again judges have a lot of power and latitude to use when you piss them off.

It reads like a child saying sorry:) this has got to reach the news along with the follow case. I think Microsoft would have written a 10,000 word apology which read like a EULA. Every bit unread after the first title.

A Streisand Effect is exactly the point. With an apology like this, it's sure to draw attention, but that means that they'll have more people on the Apple website just a few clicks away from buying an iPad, and all of them will be reading about how a judge stated in his official ruling that the "informed user" will appreciate the iPad, or how courts around the world have been ruling that Samsung's less popular device is a copycat product.

True or not, that all plays right into Apple's hand. It's an extremely

My rough take on this, and one Apple should probably absorb globally, is that legal cases are what they are. If you are going to cry publicly that others are not following the 'law' - you don't really gain much from then being a jackass in cases where its been found you are wrong. Why now should Samsung behave in result of a ruling? If all make mockey of the process, then where does it lead.

No, Apple need to be pulled back in court and to be hammered. Double hammered. And then hammered some more. Seems a deliberate and stupid attempt to deviate from the nature and spirit of the ruling laid down on them. This isn't marketing. This is a legal case. Trying to unleash the marketing idiots on it is a mistake, and is erroneous.

Jobs in his younger days - pretty much stated that he stole everything, every idea, every good design and so on - as far as he could. Thats why he went to Xerox Parc and was so taken with a GUI - the same as Paul Allen - 'one day every computer will use that' - Its sad that in the end - he failed to understand that anyone imitating their work is in a way paying a form of homage to them - and their early spirit. And later it seems legalese and not innovation has become the guiding light. Somewhere - someone got lost.

Where would Apple be if Xerox (parc) had walked up to early Apple and crushed them in a court case. Where would the innovation be. Its too simplistic really - but you get the point.

The judges ruling clearly states:As a result of his second judgment, Judge Birss ordered that:

Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.

AndThe material part of the notice specified in Schedule 1 reads:

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]

The judge specifically spelled out what Apple was suppose to post. Apple didn't follow these instruction by attaching all the other cruft to the ad therefore they haven't fulfilled the court order.

Apple DID post those things in the notice. They followed (as near as I can tell, though IANAL) the precise letter of the law. I do not see anywhere anything that says that they must ONLY post the notice specified in Schedule 1. In fact, they posted the stuff they were supposed to at the TOP of the text, not in the middle or anything. You can stop reading after the court-appointed 'apology' and not read any of the rest of the propaganda.

Listen, I know Apple is getting less popular by the day around here, but they did exactly what they were told to by the courts. If the courts wanted something else, they should have been more specific. Don't tell me that Apple should have gone out of their way to be more apologetic than they were supposed to or they shouldn't have spun this in their favour if they could find it. Specificity in the law is a big deal; contracts have been invalidated on the basis of INDIVIDUAL PUNCTUATION MARKS.

It is the nature of the laws and the legal system surrounding patents that needs changing, if anything. Every actor in the system will work to the absolute edges of the legal system. Don't tell me that Samsung wouldn't have done the same, given the chance. Or Microsoft. Or even Google, who is less angelic than we like to delude ourselves into believing. It's all a giant game to them; don't expect them to be altruistic or contrite.

I worked for Apple a couple years ago. While my experience was generally positive, I can say without hesitation that Apple denies everything until it is absolutely not possible to deny it anymore. Then they turn their back and walk away.

The arrogance at Apple at anything above a director level is astounding. I remember when the Mac Malware stuff first hit and little old ladies were getting gay pron popping up on their screen. Apple's officlal policy was that it wasn't their problem and no Applecare reps were allowed to even confirm the problem existed or help get rid of it. It took over a month for them to release a software update to scan and remove it and even after that they wouldn't publicly take responsibility for Safari automatically opening "safe" files.

In the Tracy Kidder book, "The Soul of a New Machine", he documents a year or so with the engineering team designing a new computer. Time pressure... long hours... high tension... and finally one of the engineers called one of the others an asshole.

The project manager called the fellow into the office & explained that we all need to be able to work with each other... yadda yadda.... and you must apologize to him.

The fellow left the office, approached the other engineer and said, "I'm sorry you're an asshole".

Sure, this looks like mockery to us unrobed and unwigged. But look at it from the Judges PoV: they know that one or both litigants will hate them. Part of the job. What judges dislike is being overturned on appeal -- especially if they've "gone too far" (rather than missing facts).

Apple has just seriously impaired any appeal: They've spent alot of money to voluntarily quote the ruling -- they must agree with it, or at least that [foundational] part. Apple can plead compliance with the order, but not with respect to the material chosen. That was entirely their own choosing.

The law grinds fine, and it is not unusual to have things work out completely the opposite of knee-jerk first appearances. Life, too. I expect the UK justices will close ranks and not reward bad behaviour.

Rather than acknowledge *WHAT* the court decided, however, all Apple really did was acknowledge *THAT* the court had decided it, and then specifically spelled out what it was that the court decided. I'm not entirely sure that a mere recitation of what all the court had decided, since this is spelled out in the court decision that is linked to anyways, could reasonably be interpreted as an actual acknowledgement of it.

I guess it remains to be seen if that sort of thing will satisfy a UK judge. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not 14 pt text (14 pixels, yes, but not 14pt).

Apple is what M$ was 10 years ago for/. current demographics - Evil Satan that can do no right.

As someone who has been on/. longer than that (and around technology of any kind even longer) - all I can say is "this too shall pass".

In the meantime, I think Apple did the right thing. Take it on the personal level. Let's say you feel someone wronged you. You go to court, try to correct the wrong, and court decides against you and (in your opinion, adding insult to injury) requires you to apologize to the party that offended you. How do you feel? Can you offer an honest apology? Why would you? Regardless of whether you agree or don't agree Samsung copied Apple. For the record, while I am not a big fan of Apple policies, I *do* feel that most manufacturers, including Samsung, are copying them. In these things the devil is in the details, and *imho* these details are what make Apple products convenient and others (Samsung) are convenient mostly as far as they follow these same details. Feel free to disagree.

And of course no discussion of British legal system and apologies is complete without this, which I find extremely pertinent:http://movieclips.com/CDHXP-a-fish-called-wanda-movie-upside-down-apology/(Now you can tell how old I am:) Linking here because youtube is misbehaving at the moment)

Not to play the UID game but it looks like I've probably been here a tad bit longer than you. I remember the glory days of MS bashing and the reasons for bashing were very different. People hated Windows because it crashed 200 times a day and any 8 year old with a DOS prompt could essentially "root" your box. MS also practiced extremely agressive anti-trust behavior.

Apple does none of the above. They just sue the piss out of competitors and act like arrogant jerks every chance they get. I'm not going to pas

They like other retailers have had reasons to publish recall notices for products which turn out to be faulty, this is a legal recuirement. They usually are black and white with no pictures and tiny logos if the logo is even present. The ones for HEMA are in color, with clear logo and product image also in full color. They don't need to, but they do because... well, they care for their customers? That at least is the image this gives people. The company has an EXCELLENT reputation with most Dutch people. They sell a LOT of their own branded stuff and while it isn't premium quality it is cheap and reliable and if you have a problem just return it and get a full refund with no hassle.

They respect their customers and deal with laws as adults, obeying not just the letter (print recall notice) but the spirit (try your best to notify the customers they might have a faulty product).

Compared to Apples reputation... lying about European warranties (2 years vs 1 year that apple gives), false advertising and now this kind of childish stunt. It means any adult sees Apple as just plain pathetic. Childish. Petty. Immature.

Grow up Apple. All you have done by this is given ammo to apple haters to ridicule your fanboys with.

Had they produced a mature ad, only the fanboys would have wimpered and everyone else would have said "oh well at least they aren't sore losers".

Now they are the laughing stock of the world for throwing a temper tantrum. Only yuppies respect this kind of stuff and the like of Romney who likes to fire people. The rest of us want to live in a mature world were people and companies act with a bit of dignity.

No, he was proactively copied in look and feel of his first post by TWX. TWX then just made is post less cool, so that it would be differentiated. Look at all those extra words.. is that an adverb?! It's a mockery of the simplicity of AC's post.